In-vivo Performance of Seven Commercially Available Demineralized Bone Matrix Fiber and Putty Products in a Rat Posterolateral Fusion Model

Abstract

Introduction: Demineralized bone matrix (DBM) is a widely used bone graft in spinal fusion. Most commercial DBMs are composed of demineralized bone particles (~125-800 microns) suspended in a carrier that provides improved handling but dilutes the osteoinductive component. DBM fibers (DBF) provide improved osteoconductivity and do not require a carrier. It has been suggested that 100% DBF may offer improved performance over particulate-based DBMs with carrier. Study Design: Seven commercially available DBM products were tested in an athymic rat posterolateral fusion model. There were four 100% DBFs, two DBFs containing a carrier, and one particulate-based DBM containing carrier. Objective: The study objectives were to evaluate the in vivo performance: (1) compare fusion rate and fusion maturity of six commercially available DBFs and one particulate-based DBM, and (2) assess the effect of carrier on fusion outcomes for DBFs in a posterolateral fusion model. Methods: The DBF/DBM products evaluated were: Strand^TM Family, Propel® DBM Fibers, Vesuvius® Demineralized Fibers, Optium® DBM Putty, Grafton® DBF, Grafton Flex, and DBX® Putty. Single-level posterolateral fusion was performed in 69 athymic rats. Fusion was assessed bilaterally after 4 weeks by manual palpation, radiograph and CT for bridging bone. Fusion mass maturity was assessed with a CT maturity grading scale and by histology. Statistical analysis was performed using Fishers Exact Test for categorical data and Kruskal-Wallis Test for non-parametric data. Results: Strand Family achieved 100% fusion (18/18) by manual palpation, radiographic and CT evaluation, significantly higher than Propel Fibers, Vesuvius Fibers, Optium Putty, and DBX Putty, and not statistically higher than Grafton DBF and Grafton Flex. Strand Family provided the highest fusion maturity, with CT maturity grade of 2.3/3.0 and 89% mature fusion rate. Fusion results suggest a detrimental effect of carrier on fusion performance. Conclusions: There were large variations in fusion performance for seven commercially available DBM products in an established preclinical fusion model. There were even significant differences between different 100% DBF products, suggesting that composition alone does not guarantee in vivo performance. In the absence of definitive clinical evidence, surgeons should carefully consider available data in valid animal models when selecting demineralized allograft options.

Keywords: athymic rat; bone graft; carrier; demineralized bone fiber; demineralized bone matrix; posterolateral spinal fusion; spinal fusion.